366 réponses à ce sujet

[Faust1979]

David Gaider wrote...

Dragon Age is about difficult decisions, and not always knowing which path is the "right" one. As before, some themes will be dark and others won't be. There will be some disturbing and mature content, some betrayal, some heartache... as well as some comedy and some joy where it can be found.

Beyond that? I doubt we've any interest in pushing the envelope and making Dragon Age darker just for the sake of doing so, nor in engaging in topics over what "dark" consists of-- as if that were some clearly-defined and immutable category. We're also not interested in Dragon Age being all about fantasy escapism, where bad things aren't supposed to happen because they might be upsetting. They will.

If that makes it difficult to plot exactly where Dragon Age lies on the Dark-o-Meter... well, so what? We're not trying to be edgy. Just entertaining. We'll do our best on that front, but as always your personal mileage may vary.

That sounds awesome Mr. Gaider! I'm very eager to play this game

[The_FenixV]

Lenimph wrote...

What if the dead person Varric is mourning over in the trailer is Hawke?

Well some people have been saying that it's a female body so definitively not Hawke... 

[RepHope]

David Gaider wrote...

Dragon Age is about difficult decisions, and not always knowing which path is the "right" one. As before, some themes will be dark and others won't be. There will be some disturbing and mature content, some betrayal, some heartache... as well as some comedy and some joy where it can be found.

Beyond that? I doubt we've any interest in pushing the envelope and making Dragon Age darker just for the sake of doing so, nor in engaging in topics over what "dark" consists of-- as if that were some clearly-defined and immutable category. We're also not interested in Dragon Age being all about fantasy escapism, where bad things aren't supposed to happen because they might be upsetting. They will.

If that makes it difficult to plot exactly where Dragon Age lies on the Dark-o-Meter... well, so what? We're not trying to be edgy. Just entertaining. We'll do our best on that front, but as always your personal mileage may vary.

Sounds interesting to say the least, but I do hope you manage to strike a good balance. That said I tend to like my bittersweet more on the sweet side if possible.

[Jonathan Seagull]

It's funny, because I've long felt that the writers could save themselves some hassle by killing off a few of the characters that have various potential states. For example, if Alistair is still alive (no matter what he's doing)? He dies. Bethany or Carver, or Zevran? Dies. To be clear, I'm not saying I think they should do this, nor am I talking about audience reaction (I also suspect that they would think long and hard about "inevitably" killing off a love interest -- they even got flak for Thane). But simply from a perspective of making the universe more manageable, in terms of things like save imports, that would certainly be one way to go about it.

I tend to think that no character should be untouchable, especially in an ongoing series with such a large cast. I don't think anyone here is arguing that major players should be killed just to be edgy, and certainly not that deaths should be "meaningless" or "arbitrary." But that doesn't mean, IMO, that the deaths of important/likeable/popular characters should be off-limits.

I'll say that I would not be too surprised if DA:I took at least a couple of major characters and "removed them from the equation," in one way or another. Whether that is by death, or by some other means of eliminating expectations that they will appear again, I could understand them wanting to clear some of the dust off the chalkboard going forward.

Modifié par Jonathan Seagull, 11 juin 2013 - 04:32 .

[Sable Rhapsody]

Jonathan Seagull wrote...
I tend to think that no character should be untouchable, especially in an ongoing series with such a large cast. I don't think anyone here is arguing that major players should be killed just to be edgy, and certainly not that deaths should be "meaningless" or "arbitrary." But that doesn't mean, IMO, that the deaths of important/likeable/popular characters should be off-limits.

I'll say that I would not be too surprised if DA:I took at least a couple of major characters and "removed them from the equation," in one way or another. Whether that is by death, or by some other means of eliminating expectations that they will appear again, I could understand them wanting to clear some of the dust off the chalkboard going forward.

Agreed.  Even non-interactive media with a large cast suffers the problem of too many plot lines and characters, A Song of Ice and Fire being a prime example.  

Personally, I find death a less interesting way of ending a character's story involvement and character arc.  Emotional breakdown, insanity, retirement, maiming, dramatically walking out the door...the trouble is that death is the (usually) permanent one, so it's the neatest.

[Ieldra]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

Give us choice... DAO worked because it could be as dark or "lighter" depending on what you did..

Then why the **** would you take the darker options if you can get a happily-ever after ending?

It isn't as if the lighter decisions didn't have a price. You can either:
(1) Sacrifice your life and kill the Archdemon.
(2) Order Alistair to kill it and lose a friend to kill the Archdemon.
(3) Let Loghain kill it but lose Alistair as a friend.
(4) Do Morrigan's ritual and nobody dies.

Personally, for me the ritual was a no-brainer. I find Morrigan's plan interesting and want to see what comes of it, and I don't see anything evil in it. So that ending is indeed a happy ending except that Morrigan goes away. Others might it fitting that Loghain kills the Archdemon and while Alistair leaves, at least nobody dies who didn't have something to atone for, so that's a rather happy ending as well, but still, even though the prices are lower in those two, they still exist. 

Also, I would take darker options if they made for a better story in my personal opinion. Sacrificing yourself rarely does IMO, but I know others who think differently. DAO has an ending range that has something for everyone.

[Jamesnew2]

David Gaider wrote...

Dragon Age is about difficult decisions, and not always knowing which path is the "right" one. As before, some themes will be dark and others won't be. There will be some disturbing and mature content, some betrayal, some heartache... as well as some comedy and some joy where it can be found.

Beyond that? I doubt we've any interest in pushing the envelope and making Dragon Age darker just for the sake of doing so, nor in engaging in topics over what "dark" consists of-- as if that were some clearly-defined and immutable category. We're also not interested in Dragon Age being all about fantasy escapism, where bad things aren't supposed to happen because they might be upsetting. They will.

If that makes it difficult to plot exactly where Dragon Age lies on the Dark-o-Meter... well, so what? We're not trying to be edgy. Just entertaining. We'll do our best on that front, but as always your personal mileage may vary.

Can't really argue with that XD

[d-boy15]

David Gaider wrote...

Dragon Age is about difficult decisions, and not always knowing which path is the "right" one. As before, some themes will be dark and others won't be. There will be some disturbing and mature content, some betrayal, some heartache... as well as some comedy and some joy where it can be found.

Beyond that? I doubt we've any interest in pushing the envelope and making Dragon Age darker just for the sake of doing so, nor in engaging in topics over what "dark" consists of-- as if that were some clearly-defined and immutable category. We're also not interested in Dragon Age being all about fantasy escapism, where bad things aren't supposed to happen because they might be upsetting. They will.

If that makes it difficult to plot exactly where Dragon Age lies on the Dark-o-Meter... well, so what? We're not trying to be edgy. Just entertaining. We'll do our best on that front, but as always your personal mileage may vary.

Let's hope that DAI will live up to that...

I do not wish it to be another romance fest.

[Renmiri1]

Thanemancer here

No thanks. All that darkness spoiled ME3 bigtime. why do you think Citadel is the most beloved DLC ?

Dark isn't edgy is just lame

[Uccio]

No killing for the sake of killing itself. If choises one make cause it then ok, but not because "dark".

[Il Divo]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Thanemancer here

No thanks. All that darkness spoiled ME3 bigtime. why do you think Citadel is the most beloved DLC ?

Dark isn't edgy is just lame

That's not Bioware's fault. Or to be more specific, the surprise at Thane's death isn't their fault. They made it pretty clear via ME2 that Thane was living on borrowed time. Now, if they had gone away and hinted that Thane knows of a way to clear his illness (and no LOTSB doesn't count), that would be another thing entirely.

A better example would be the handling of Jacob, whose (admittedly small) fan base was screwed without any sort of foreshadowing. But romancing terminally ill humanoids tends to end badly.

And while I enjoyed Citadel, it was pure fan service, designed entirely for comedic effect. Fun maybe for a few hours, but not something an entire game should be made up of.

Modifié par Il Divo, 11 juin 2013 - 06:31 .

[Vilegrim]

how about Make DA:I Dark...kill off the Maker

[Neon Rising Winter]

Dark, dark, dark just because dark - it's the new black, no thanks. I wouldn't be interested in a piece of music that was just the same note played over and over and I'm not interested in a story that does the same thing. Despair, betrayal and horror woven into a story that also contains hope, friendship and humour. Yes please.

[fiveforchaos]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Thanemancer here

No thanks. All that darkness spoiled ME3 bigtime. why do you think Citadel is the most beloved DLC ?

Dark isn't edgy is just lame

Now, I'm always one to argue for some nice comedy, but I'm not going to say the Citadel DLC is the right tone to set an entire game at. The Citadel DLC worked because, like you said, ME3 was overall to darker, with very, very little breather, and the Citadel DLC kind of fixed that by giving the player a massive dose of lighthearted fun in one go. 

What 40 hour games like Bioware need to do (and what Bioware is generally very good at doing) is balance out the fun, lightheard, comedic and heatwarming moments, with the darkier, angsty, sad moments. 40 hours is a long time, people just can't maintain the same feeling of "darkness and misery" over 40 hours within the same world, eventually it just turns into apathy. Those fun, lighthearted moments are required to show the players what they're fighting for during the sad moments, and they make death and loss all the more heatbreaking when they come with the knowledge that those particular lightheated moments will never happen again.

Conversely of course, you can't make it too lighthearted, or else you get people wondering why that big green hole in the sky is such a major problem to begin with (which was a common complaint for the Citadel DLC). They once again become apathatic towards their goal, except this time it's due to an overdose of "fun and joy" rather than "darkness and misery". 

tl;dr: For the player to care, you've got to give them something to fight for, and those more cheery, lighthearted moments, are where you give it to them. 

tl;dr;tl;dr: It's all about balance.

[frostajulie]

David Gaider wrote...

Dragon Age is about difficult decisions, and not always knowing which path is the "right" one. As before, some themes will be dark and others won't be. There will be some disturbing and mature content, some betrayal, some heartache... as well as some comedy and some joy where it can be found.

Beyond that? I doubt we've any interest in pushing the envelope and making Dragon Age darker just for the sake of doing so, nor in engaging in topics over what "dark" consists of-- as if that were some clearly-defined and immutable category. We're also not interested in Dragon Age being all about fantasy escapism, where bad things aren't supposed to happen because they might be upsetting. They will.

If that makes it difficult to plot exactly where Dragon Age lies on the Dark-o-Meter... well, so what? We're not trying to be edgy. Just entertaining. We'll do our best on that front, but as always your personal mileage may vary.

Thats why youtube and user reviews are so very useful.  ONe persons idea of entertainment is another persons idea of utter failure and disappointment aka the end of ME3.  Its the line you walk when you ignore the fact that gaming IS fantasy escapism no matter how hard you try to redefine it.

[Iakus]

fiveforchaos wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...

Thanemancer here

No thanks. All that darkness spoiled ME3 bigtime. why do you think Citadel is the most beloved DLC ?

Dark isn't edgy is just lame

Now, I'm always one to argue for some nice comedy, but I'm not going to say the Citadel DLC is the right tone to set an entire game at. The Citadel DLC worked because, like you said, ME3 was overall to darker, with very, very little breather, and the Citadel DLC kind of fixed that by giving the player a massive dose of lighthearted fun in one go. 

What 40 hour games like Bioware need to do (and what Bioware is generally very good at doing) is balance out the fun, lightheard, comedic and heatwarming moments, with the darkier, angsty, sad moments. 40 hours is a long time, people just can't maintain the same feeling of "darkness and misery" over 40 hours within the same world, eventually it just turns into apathy. Those fun, lighthearted moments are required to show the players what they're fighting for during the sad moments, and they make death and loss all the more heatbreaking when they come with the knowledge that those particular lightheated moments will never happen again.

Conversely of course, you can't make it too lighthearted, or else you get people wondering why that big green hole in the sky is such a major problem to begin with (which was a common complaint for the Citadel DLC). They once again become apathatic towards their goal, except this time it's due to an overdose of "fun and joy" rather than "darkness and misery". 

tl;dr: For the player to care, you've got to give them something to fight for, and those more cheery, lighthearted moments, are where you give it to them. 

tl;dr;tl;dr: It's all about balance.

No, CItadel doesn't (and shouldn't have) set the tone for ME3.

But ME3 was so dark and bitter, the endings in particular, that a lot of people needed that shot of sugar.  It is about balance, and giving the player enough leeway to strike the balance they're comfortable with.

[MWImexico]

Narrow Margin wrote...

Dark, dark, dark just because dark - it's the new black, no thanks. I wouldn't be interested in a piece of music that was just the same note played over and over and I'm not interested in a story that does the same thing. Despair, betrayal and horror woven into a story that also contains hope, friendship and humour. Yes please.

I concur, too many difficult choices could push me to throw the game out of the window, you know, like the guy from the movie "Happiness therapy" did with his Hemingway book.  

Like this :
www.youtube.com/watch

Modifié par MWImexico, 11 juin 2013 - 07:17 .

[Renmiri1]

aye agreed with balance. I mentioned Citadel because it was just about the only thing that made ME3 bearable for a lot of people.

[fiveforchaos]

iakus wrote...

fiveforchaos wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...

Thanemancer here

No thanks. All that darkness spoiled ME3 bigtime. why do you think Citadel is the most beloved DLC ?

Dark isn't edgy is just lame

Now, I'm always one to argue for some nice comedy, but I'm not going to say the Citadel DLC is the right tone to set an entire game at. The Citadel DLC worked because, like you said, ME3 was overall to darker, with very, very little breather, and the Citadel DLC kind of fixed that by giving the player a massive dose of lighthearted fun in one go. 

What 40 hour games like Bioware need to do (and what Bioware is generally very good at doing) is balance out the fun, lightheard, comedic and heatwarming moments, with the darkier, angsty, sad moments. 40 hours is a long time, people just can't maintain the same feeling of "darkness and misery" over 40 hours within the same world, eventually it just turns into apathy. Those fun, lighthearted moments are required to show the players what they're fighting for during the sad moments, and they make death and loss all the more heatbreaking when they come with the knowledge that those particular lightheated moments will never happen again.

Conversely of course, you can't make it too lighthearted, or else you get people wondering why that big green hole in the sky is such a major problem to begin with (which was a common complaint for the Citadel DLC). They once again become apathatic towards their goal, except this time it's due to an overdose of "fun and joy" rather than "darkness and misery". 

tl;dr: For the player to care, you've got to give them something to fight for, and those more cheery, lighthearted moments, are where you give it to them. 

tl;dr;tl;dr: It's all about balance.

No, CItadel doesn't (and shouldn't have) set the tone for ME3.

But ME3 was so dark and bitter, the endings in particular, that a lot of people needed that shot of sugar.  It is about balance, and giving the player enough leeway to strike the balance they're comfortable with.

Well, looks like we agree then. I like what you mean about "giving the player the leeway to strike the balance they're comfortable with". How players choose to have their protagonist react to different situations can effect how dark or light the game feels in a big way. ME3 didn't feel nearly as dark when I played the paragon who knew when to lean on they're friends for support and comfot, as it did when I played the Paragade who had made the exact same major choices, but had isolated herself from her friends due to her own obtusness. And it wasn't about "well obviously why wouldn't someone just choose the happiest option" either, it was about the difference between two "ideals" that one can reasonably expect the player to strive for..."the cool factor" or the "friendly factor". Do I make my Shepard the cool badass who isn't afraid of anything, but becomes untouchable to her companions. Or do I reach out to my companions, at the risk of my character showing vulnerability I don't want them to show. 

[NM_Che56]

David Gaider wrote...

Dragon Age is about difficult decisions, and not always knowing which path is the "right" one. As before, some themes will be dark and others won't be. There will be some disturbing and mature content, some betrayal, some heartache... as well as some comedy and some joy where it can be found.

Beyond that? I doubt we've any interest in pushing the envelope and making Dragon Age darker just for the sake of doing so, nor in engaging in topics over what "dark" consists of-- as if that were some clearly-defined and immutable category. We're also not interested in Dragon Age being all about fantasy escapism, where bad things aren't supposed to happen because they might be upsetting. They will.

If that makes it difficult to plot exactly where Dragon Age lies on the Dark-o-Meter... well, so what? We're not trying to be edgy. Just entertaining. We'll do our best on that front, but as always your personal mileage may vary.

balance.  That's important.  If you just focus on one, then the game feels so ... one dimensional.  It will lack depth.

DA:I needs to make us laugh, cry, shock us, etc.  The more types of FEELS the better.

[archangel1996]

Mass Effect 3 was not dark, it was just BW trying to add darkness that in the end became lame.
I mean i don't think movies like the gladiator or I am legend are lame because they are dark
The greatest thing that support this is the 6 months when Shepard does nothing, just to add something to the dark theme XD

Fact of the matter, i would be better if you don't kill off characters like you did with Emily Wong(twitter) or Shepard(stupid suicide), Mordin had a good death, but it still didn't feel like a RPG death (IMO)

[Dead Reckoning]

Sure, you want the war to have a real cost to your hero and the main characters. You want it to be personal, to be emotional. Killing off your love interest would do that, but it can also be the easiest and sometimes the least creative way to achieve what you are looking for.

I loved how Mordin was handled in ME 3. But using the same trick with Legion later just felt like an easy gimmick to force players into an emotional response at the end of the next chapter.

I would just prefer that we don't end up with a forum with everyone saying "Yes, kill off some characters. Oh, wait, not THAT character. That is my favorite one. Please kill off someone else's favorite character, instead."

[Sable Rhapsody]

iakus wrote...
It is about balance, and giving the player enough leeway to strike the balance they're comfortable with.

Agreed.  BG2 IMO did a great job of this with its sidequests: some of them were extremely disturbing (the skinner quests) and others were downright goofy (the insane talking sword).  None of them were mandatory, and the variety in tone allowed the player to "adjust" the overall tone of the game for personal taste.  

To be fair, there's only so much you can do with sidequests, and the main plot tone is still on the developers.  But it does come down to balance; even George R.R. Martin makes use of humor and lightness.

[Giantdeathrobot]

Dragon Age is not A Song of Ice and Fire (or Game of Thrones for the unsullied among us). Morever (and I say this as a lifelong fan), the serie's penchant for killing characters is kinda overestimated. No spoilers, but not that many characters die. You can easily make more important people die in Origins or Mass Effect 2 than there are casualties among the entire main cast of ASoIaF. Only true difference is the sheer brutality of those kills.

As for Dragon Age getting darker than Origins, well only to a point. it should not be like DA2, where things got so dark and people became so assholish that in the end, whichever you chose didn't matter anymore, war, death and destruction would be the outcome no matter what and you couldn't do anything to stop it. Meanwhile, I found that Origins got off a bit too easy; yeah you can kill characters yourself if you want to, but if you don't the deadly Darkspawn invasion is stopped pretty easily all things considered. Whatever problem arises in DA:I should be harder to solve, but it seems that is already the case so yay.

One thing I will say; stop the cop-outs, Bioware. I'm talking about stuff like the Mage resolution to the Redcliffe storyline, or things like the Geth/Quarian conflict having a ''get out of jail free'' card (yes I know not the same team it's just an example). if you're going to push hard choices, don't make a third golden one. The third could be lessened consequences for everybody (as opposed to all the consequences piling up on one party) but a consequence-less choice is no choice. I don't want to get the urge to metagame, knowing that I'm simply doing things wrong right now. The Genophage decision in ME3 is a good example of this, as is the King of Orzammar one. Those are the kind of dilemnas that should be present.

[Swoopdogg]

 I feel like Mass Effect did it really well, especially in ME2. You can actually get your entire team killed, and that impacts who's available to you in ME3.

I'd agree that there needs to be something like this in DA, especially with everyone around the world killing each other. If not companions, then maybe some major non-companion characters. Also, the deaths need to be surprising.

A side note about the Red Wedding: I do not want George R.R. Martin as my wedding planner!